turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Holy Alliance
Regarding the editorial: "The War of Spanish Succession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Spanish_Succession was fought between 1701 and 1714, before the POD for this timeline. It ended with the House of Bourbon gaining the Spanish throne. However, at the insistence of the British, the stipulation was made that the same Bourbon monarch would never rule both France and Spain. Instead, a separate Spanish Bourbon dynasty was created. Evidently, in The Two Georges timeline, this stipulation was overturned at some unspecified later date." I suggest that everything aside from this is irrelevant. We don't know for sure if there were subsequent wars between Britain and France to prevent the Alliance. Moreover, what happened under Napoleon is completely irrelevant. TR (talk) 22:27, December 5, 2013 (UTC) :I agree especially since in this timeline Napoleon remained a loyal officer of the French Crown. Also: "... though the scope of such a war might have been more limited than OTL Napoleonic Wars." It is explicitly stated by Bushell that there hadn't been a major, world spanning war since the Seven Years' War. The conflicts between Britain and the Holy Alliance were described as border disputes although at least one was big enough for the NAU to gain the Spanish holdings north of the Rio Grande same as OTL. Off the top of my head, the Alliance probably formed through later political manoeuvring and dynastic marriages that Britain didn't want to go to war over. ML4E (talk) 23:22, December 6, 2013 (UTC) Lit comm fuck-up So the piece of shit lit comm seems to be growing again. What the fuck? TR (talk) 06:09, December 30, 2016 (UTC) :I just pared it down by finding things which could move to the in-universe section. Hope that helps a little.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 19:09, December 30, 2016 (UTC) ::You know, I just don't think we need it anymore. TR (talk) 01:36, December 31, 2016 (UTC) ::I think the first paragraph on the Treaty gives some useful background info but the second on "Holy" is redundant. It basically says we don't know why its called the Holy Alliance. Well, duh. ML4E (talk) 16:21, December 31, 2016 (UTC) :::I'm not even sure how useful that is anymore. We over two centuries of undocumented history. Moreover, treaties are only as binding as their least cooperative signatory. The original agreements were signed by Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, the Dutch Republic (which probably went defunct in 1795 as it did on the OTL schedule), and Savoy (which may still be a going concern). By the 19th century, the political situation would almost certainly have shifted so that enforcing the treaty would near impossible, and really may have been of dubious value. Various countries might see value in having a viable counterbalance to Britain, particularly the smaller ones, and Britain might not want to take on the world. Alternatively, Britain might conclude that a Franco-Spanish Empire would still be a fairly weak adversary, and therefore would see no value in expending blood and treasure to prevent their unification. :::The fact that the Alliance exists is sufficient evidence that the Treaty no longer exists, and we will never know why. :::(AH grounded in the War of the Spanish Succession has so obvious much story potential, but as most North American readers probably aren't as familiar with it as other topics, publishers won't come near it with a ten foot pole.) TR (talk) 18:20, December 31, 2016 (UTC) ::::By creating a House of Bourbon article, and organically referencing Utrecht in its OTL section, I've eliminated the need for it here.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 09:26, January 4, 2017 (UTC)